satellite_get_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the tool reports the current decode or falls back to the last one, clarifying behavior when no active decode exists. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the 'get_status' verb and status/result scope make that intent apparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource and its current-or-last scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers what is queried and the current/last fallback. The only small gap is behavior when no decode has ever run, which is likely handled by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail because none exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and results') and scopes it to the current or last Meteor-M decode. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools such as satellite_decode_meteor, satellite_stop_decoding, and sdr_get_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for use: checking the active or most recent Meteor-M decode. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as satellite_decode_meteor for starting a decode or satellite_stop_decoding for stopping one, and it provides no when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.